Burr Sutter wrote:
My point is we have plenty of time to worry about this issue
considering
the jBPM team has a really long term set plan (a rewrite to be
multi-process language focused) plus the fact that it has a
human-centric workflow concern that is less directly related to the
needs of the ESB.
Now, we can certainly discuss how much more important are the needs of
the ESB vs things like multi-language and human task management.
Please sell me on the idea of lifecycle as it relates to jBPM. The
instantiation and manipulation of a jBPM process is primarily a series
of database transactions.
Um, jBPM doesn't have to be a series of database transactions. That's
the user's decision.
As far as lifecycle goes, right now jbpm works the same way as ESB 4.0
worked. Actions are created per invocation on the action. We need
actions that are created when the process definition starts so that they
can hold state and shared between process instances. ESB would also
need pluggable transition implementations so that per transition, the
developer can decide how the transition happens (over JMS for instance).
Bill
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.